Chief Stipe

About sums you up @Pete Lane. You put the boot into RaceCafe when you got the pip and with Heslop joined here when I started BOAY. You then got pissed off when I wouldn't ban the likes of @Thomass and @Transparency nor give you moderation access. You and Hesi then team up and form your own site. You got bored with that and then started to poke the borax here and back on RaceCafe. I called you out on it and you got pissed off again posting numerous toxic posts. You've now kissed and made up with @Comic Dog (I hope he took you for plenty) and are in partnership with him. I guess @hesi is happy. So who is the joke?

No my comment isn't silly. You are only considering one factor. As I pointed out in my previous post their opportunities were limited especially with the transfer of the meeting at Riccarton from the Turf to the AWT. The point I'm making is you in the grandstand don't have all the information available to you that the Premier trainer does. So to suggest that the horse has been poorly placed doesn't consider all the factors. Yes I'm pleased you didn't back it. As I said I was surprised it was a short priced favourite given its draw, the Heavy 10 track and 4kg claimer on board. Its price was not value at any stage and I'm surprised someone like @SLB2.0 thinks otherwise.

Have you noticed that the horse in question has about one race a month? Did you notice that the meeting scheduled for the Riccarton Turf was transferred to the Synthetic? They obviously didn't want to run on the AWT. So there wasn't another Turf meeting at Riccarton until 21 June that would mean 8 weeks between runs at Riccarton. Haven't you seen posters on BOAY complaining about the lack of opportunities on the turf at Riccarton?

Bollocks. Do you want me to list @Pete Lane 's posts for you? Or even @nomates ? Actually I might do the big reveal of Lanes behaviour when he spat the dummy here and set up the site with Hesi. That was over him wanting to ban certain people because he didn't like them and I refused. So if calling him a hypocrite is being toxic then yeah I'm into toxicity in spades! Do you really think McKenzie has changed? Bullshit. Oh the irony of him getting a Bell Gully lawyer to send me a letter accusing me of the very things @Pete Lane had done and threatening legal action. Oh doesn't the worm turn!! @Pete Lane is nothing more than an unprincipled tart who when he doesn't get his own way goes to the next stable. I'm about to publish all his stuff as well. So quite frankly @SLB2.0 if you get really upset because someone disagrees with your analysis of a ride and you don't respond with evidence of what you allege and instead copy what you've hear elsewhere then perhaps you are better where there are no standards.

Well I'm guessing at least one of the Trainers doesn't know about it. More to come...

Didn't take long before the toxicity from you new found mate caught up with you. It was too long ago you were asking to put paid advertising in this site. If you want to be in an echo chamber where everyone agrees with each other then fine. As for my personal life it is none of your business but I assure you I didn't need BOAY to justify my existence nor do I plead and cry in personal emails like Leigh McKenzie does. Answer the questions I've posed. Did you hear first hand from the onwers or are you just regurgitating what you have heard elsewhere? What should the Jockey have done differently that would have altered the result?

I see there is a number of of new entrants into the syndication market. Complaints in the past about the syndication of horses have been focussed on the purchase price markups. Some do some don't markup the yearling purchase price. But the new entrants have taken the markups to a new level with 50% or even triple figure markups. Your thoughts? For example: The Frac Club https://racehorsesnz.com/ Or Raptors https://raptors.co.nz/

Yep you're a riding expert too. Like a couple of very average ex Jockeys. What was she going to do flay her arms around and bounce up and down like most apprentices do in the South? FFS you haven't told us HOW she was going to get to the outside of the track without losing lengths. If the horse had a soft run then it will be ready again in two weeks. Do you know the owners or are you repeating what @Comic Dog told you? Apparently the trainer was "filthy" - where is the evidence? Ok so the owners punted large on a horse that is average at best on a Heavy 10 track drawn 1 with a 4kg claiming apprentice on board. Easy money for the TAB and as a self-proclaimed betting analyst I'm surprised you backed it. Perhaps they owners should reflect on the fact that the race wasn't a Grp 1 race worth $600k where a win would secure Horse of the year and ridden by the country's leading Jockey.

Early in the Autumn yes - but not now. Unless you are meaning the Synthetic track which it doesn't have a lot of form on. Again it comes back to opportunities in terms of programming. Or the horses aren't good enough. Of course most grandstand trainers are better than the Premiership winners - Mark Walker, Sam Bergerson, Hunter Durant and Ben Gleeson.

Of course not to mention the Group Think that occurs as evidenced on other channels. "Never happened in my day when we had farmers and Massey Fergs running things and no irrigation". All of which is a provincial myth that has grown over time.

Anchoring or Confirmation bias. The former is when subsequnt decisions/acrions and even the reporting of decisions/actions are anchored to the original initiating decision. So simplistically - originally it was determined meeting abandonments because of slipping were caused by poor drainage. Sand is the best draining medium. Let's apply more sand. Then the limited usefulness of sand slitting over an extended time period led to the decisions - lets make a track of pure sand. Confirmation bias is where evidence is sought out to support the original decision. For example "we had 25mm of rain at Ellerlsie and the meeting wasn't abandoned and the track was a Soft 5 the whole time". But was it a safe surface for all horses? There are a litany of disasters throughout the world arsing from the above. There is another type of behaviour that is like the above. Where one objective overrides others and ignores known data and accurate observations. For example the Space Suttle Challenger disaster. It was known there was a problem with the 'O' rings of the main rocket at clearly defined low temperatures. These were overriden by other objectives e.g. the thousands of children waiting around America to be taught a lesson from Space by the first Teacher in Space. It was the last day of term and the flight had already been delayed twice. The students got a lesson but a different type. Getting back to Ellerslie a similar thing happened at the first KM night. Horses slipped and were injured but the Show needed to go on. So I don't blame NZTR or the Clubs but the problem is the original decision I.e. sand will save us. Of course I do blame NZTR and the Clubs for decades of a lack of maintenance.

The inside has been sliced and diced more than the outside with the mechanical intervention. Karaka Millions night when it rained the inside went off real quick and the ground got shifty. As for the 25% moisture - I don't trust any of those figures as they don't tend to correlate to the track rating and they seem to refuse to change the rating from a Soft 5. 25% moisture for a purpose sand based track is too high.

Where else is it going to run in the South Island? The tracks from here on into the winter aren't going to get any better. I agree to a point. However if you are going to express an opinion or a critical analysis on a ride or a drive isn't contingent on you to provide your opinion on what SHOULD have been done. In my opinion I don't see what Hassamam could have done any differently to get a different result. As you point out @the galah the track and the draw were against the horse.

One race where she raced above her rating. She didn't perform consistently at the elite level in my opinion. Certainly not past 1600m. Comparing one race beating Mr Brightside and Via Sistina is a fairly shallow analysis. Mr Brightside 9 Grp 1's, 8 Grp 1 seconds. Now that is truly elite. Via Sistina 8 Grp 1's, 3 Grp 1 seconds. That is elite too. Pride of Jenni 3 Grp 1's. The QE2 win blinds people a bit because it was spectacular. Arguably the Jockeys chasing seriously misjudged the pace. They let her get over 5 seconds in front and as many better analysts than you or I have said JMac and Willo were looking at each other. Mr Brightside ran a huge race doing the chasing and Via Sistina came home 4.3 seconds quicker than Pride of Jenni. Spectacular yes but has been able to replicate it before or after - no.

As I said not a 2000m horse. As for a legacy she was never at the top elite.

A toss up between Kyle Williams or Leah Hemi. I'll go Hemi even though Williams was my first guess.

@Comic Dog aka Leigh MacKenzie. I'm still waiting for the legal action you have threatened against me personally. Not to mention the debt owed.

I agree but no one has posted what Hassman should have done and when. Even @nomates (short for Bob) and @Comic Dog the self proclaimed experts who are too gutless to debate anything head to head.

Yes not that it would have made any difference if I did or didn't own it. I've seen some really bad rides and that wasn't one of them. Yes - yesterday the horse wasn't good enough. If it wasn't going good enough why would I wonder if "it had been put into the race at any stage"? You haven't actually told us HOW it should have been ridden in your expert opinion. For that matter nor as your hypocrite friend the @Comic Dog !!!! I certainly wouldn't have punted on it on a Heavy 10 when drawn 1 especially given its normal racing pattern. It would have had to lose another couple of lengths to get wide and it had already drifted 3 lengths off the pace (with nowhere to go) soon after the start. So that's 5 lengths it had to make up by traversing across what you say was the worst part of the ground to get to the good stuff. But alledgedly the Trainer (which I don't believe), the owners, the average ex-jockey and you are bagging the ride so I must be wrong.

I see the @Comic Dog wrote this in response to @curious saying the Jockey DID walk the track prior to the meeting: @Comic Dog Do you know she did???Leggy I know the some owners and they are filthy and so was the trainer afterwards...she did not give the horse a single chance no matter where it was drawn, she made NO effort to ever try to get out off the fence, worst part of the track....she can ride ok but in this particular ride she cocked it up...I am sure her ears were still ringing last night. I find that hard to believe.

You wrote this comment elsewhere: There was no effort made to get the horse involved in the race. I'm not bagging the jockey, I'm just hoping that, with time, her in-race skills improve. She rode the next winner much better, and that's the type of riding she should at least attempt every ride. FFS the horse Hassman rode in race 7 drew TWELVE not ONE!!!! Of course it was going to get a decent run if you are correct in your assertion that the inside was a Heavy 20 and the outside was a Heavy 10!

Some are some aren't. Some were never very good in the first place so how could they spot a good or bad ride when the only time they rode a good ride was when they were on a good horse! What was she supposed to do to get in the first 3? Your suggestion is that she should have followed the other horses out into the middle of the track and whipped the shyte out of it. Well there are rules against doing the latter. Have you reviewed the race again? The first four horses drew 8, 7, 10 and 6. They ALL travelled wide the trip. Those that were on the immediate outside of Bello Mio turning for home didn't do much better than Bello Mio. The horse wasn't going well enough.

The horse couldn't keep up early with the field and it had no chance of moving out. She gave the horse 5 clips with the whip up the straight and the horse barely held its ground. She had two choices tactically - ride the shyte out of it at the start and hold its position or ride for luck and move off the fence if the opportunity arose AND the horse was good enough. The first option wasn't an option for that horse. Simply on the day the horse wasn't good enough and when it drew one well it was all over.

Come on @SLB2.0 you are bagging the Jockey don't try and draw a distinction. You are being hyper-critical of her ride i.e. the decisions she made. The difference is I don't see did as wrong. The horse wasn't up to it on the day. Didn't you read my comment about the competition proposal? Hardly hypocritical - it was my comment in response to the proposal that probably kiboshed the idea. As for having no time for hypocrites haven't you just kissed and made up to one so you can post in the echo chamber? Yes I will critique a bad ride if a horse wasn't given every chance and/or decisions were made that eliminated its chances but that wasn't the case in my opinion with Bello Mio. I'd say Hassman has more talent than some of the ex-Jockeys bagging her ride.

It couldn't hold its position in the first instance even when those drawn to its immediate outside could. It had no chance to get off the rail until turning for home. How do you know the inside was "much deeper" leading up to the home turn? Hassman didn't have an opportunity to do that until turning for home. It would have lost lengths even if it was going good enough to get to allegedly better ground. Which by the look of it was in the car park! The horse hadn't been going very well the whole trip. I can't understand why it was favourite. Its best races of late have been on Good tracks and it has only been able to manage one race a month. Sure it won on a Heavy 10 at Matamata but that was 2 years and 4 months ago. Yes it ran second over 1000m at its previous start at Riccarton but one could argue that wasn't a Heavy 10. The horse wasn't going well enough. I'd argue that the fact Hassman didn't ride the crap out of it shows she has some horsemanship skills. If the horse felt flat and wasn't responding to her urgings then why flog it just to satisfy the grandstand critics?